alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019288EN.01003101.xml

| 26.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/31

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Koblenz (Germany) lodged on 5 June 2019 — Remondis GmbH v Abfallzweckverband Rhein-Mosel-Eifel

(Case C-429/19)

(2019/C 288/38)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Koblenz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant: Remondis GmbH

Defendant and respondent: Abfallzweckverband Rhein-Mosel-Eifel

Other party: Landkreis Neuwied

Question referred

Is Article 12(4)(a) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that cooperation does indeed exist if a contracting authority responsible for waste disposal within its territory performs a disposal task — which is incumbent on it under national law and for the performance of which several operations are required — not entirely by itself, but rather commissions another contracting authority that is independent of it and is likewise responsible for waste disposal within its territory to carry out one of the necessary operations in return for consideration?

---

(1)  OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65.

---
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      EXHIBIT 23



                         Independent Auditor's Consent

The Board of Directors
Healthcare.com Corporation

         We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Registration Nos. 33-99034, 333-08295, 333-08293, 333-08287, 333-08283,
333-08279, 333-08271, 333-52165, 333-52155, 333-52145, 333-37572, 333-37562,
333-37560 and 333-37556) on Form S-8 and the registration statements
(Registration Nos. 333-55703 and 333-90849) on Form S-3 of Healthcare.com
Corporation of our reports dated January 19, 2001, except as to note 15, which
is as of January 25, 2001, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
Healthcare.com Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2000 and 1999,
and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity and
cash flows and related schedule for each of the years in the three-year period
ended December 31, 2000, which reports appear in the December 31, 2000 annual
report on Form 10-K of Healthcare.com Corporation.


                                                      /s/ KPMG LLP
                                                      ------------------------


Atlanta, Georgia
March 30, 2001
Exhibit
32.2





Certification Pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to


Section 906 of
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I, James Dole, the Chief Financial
Officer of WorldGate Communications, Inc., hereby certify, pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Form 10-Q of WorldGate
Communications, Inc., for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010, which
this certification accompanies, fully complies with requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d))
and information contained in the Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
2010 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of WorldGate Communications, Inc.





A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to WorldGate and will be
retained by WorldGate and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.





Dated:
      November 15, 2010
            
            /s/James
      DoleJames
      DoleChief
      Financial Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DOUGLAS JOHNSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP 

INC, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-35186 

D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00766-RSL 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 16, 2018**

Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Douglas Johnson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

dismissing as a discovery sanction his action alleging federal claims. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Valley 

Eng’rs Inc. v. Elec. Eng’g Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 1998), and we 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JAN 22 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-35186 

affirm. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Johnson’s action

as a discovery sanction after first imposing a less drastic sanction and warning that 

noncompliance with discovery orders would result in dismissal. See id. (setting 

forth factors to be considered before dismissing under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Johnson’s request

to appoint new counsel. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(setting forth standard of review and the “exceptional circumstances” requirement).

We decline to exercise our discretion to review the denial of Johnson’s 

motion for summary judgment on his ERISA claim. See Jones-Hamilton Co. v. 

Beazer Materials & Servs, Inc., 973 F.2d 688, 694 n.2 (9th Cir. 1992) (explaining 

exception under which the court may exercise its discretion to review a denial of 

summary judgment, which ordinarily is not appealable).

We reject as without merit Johnson’s contentions that the district court

sabotaged or retaliated against him by, among other things, imposing a monetary 

sanction, or erred by failing to conduct a hearing on his former counsel’s motion to 

withdraw. 

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief, or documents and facts not presented to the district court. See 

Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Elias, 
3 17-35186 

921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990). 

AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-10619

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RICKEY LAVELL JENNINGS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:17-CR-45-1

Before CLEMENT, GRAVES, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Rickey Lavell Jennings has moved 

for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 

(5th Cir. 2011). Jennings has filed responses. The record is not sufficiently 

developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Jennings’s claim of 

ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 23, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-10619 Document: 00515355578 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/23/2020
No. 18-10619

2

without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 

841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant parts of the record 

reflected therein, as well as Jennings’s responses. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused 

from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See

5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Jennings’s untimely request for appointment of new counsel 

on appeal is DENIED. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th 

Cir. 1998).

 Case: 18-10619 Document: 00515355578 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/23/2020
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

November 20, 2009

Mr. William Richard Thompson II

Hankinson Levinger LLP

750 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 1800

Dallas, TX 75201

Mr. Fred Bowers

Bowers Law Office

P. O. Box 327

Lubbock, TX 79408-0327

Honorable R. Carter Tinsley Schildknecht

106th District Court

PO Box 1268

Lamesa, TX 79331-1268

RE:Case Number:  09-0122

Court of Appeals Number:  11-08-00215-CV

Trial Court Number:  07-09-15507

Style:IN RE  GOLDEN PEANUT COMPANY, LLC

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas issued an opinion in the above-referenced cause.  You may obtain a copy of the opinion at: http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/recent.asp.  If you would like the opinion by email, please contact Claudia Jenks at claudia.jenks@courts.state.tx.us or call (512)463-1312 ext. 41367.  

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 09-0122Page 1**
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                  5
<LEGEND>
 THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS FOR VALLEY NATIONAL GASES INCORPORATED AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                      0001030715
<NAME>                     VALLEY NATIONAL GASES INCORPORATED
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           3,276,982
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,881,450
<ALLOWANCES>                                       259,423
<INVENTORY>                                      6,968,005
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,777,978
<PP&E>                                          47,012,043
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,830,490
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  62,052,704
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,092,915
<BONDS>                                         30,608,582
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            18,301
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,004,548
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    62,052,704
<SALES>                                         54,049,282
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                54,049,282
<CGS>                                           24,926,122
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   24,926,122
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                24,404,624
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,607,774
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,435,187
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,435,187
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,435,187
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                             203
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      854
<ALLOWANCES>                                        25
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,074
<PP&E>                                             676
<DEPRECIATION>                                     427
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,512
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,005
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             6
<OTHER-SE>                                       (344)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,512
<SALES>                                            924
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   924
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   974
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  18
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (68)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (68)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (68)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.11)
        


</TABLE>
# C_2020087EN.01002001.xml

| 16.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 87/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 87/20

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 12 December 2019 — KF v SatCen

(Case T-619/19 R)

(Decision to launch administrative investigation - Application for suspension of a decision - Application for interim measures - Inadmissibility - No urgency)

(2020/C 87/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: KF (represented by: Ms A. Kunst, lawyer, and Mr N. Macaulay, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Satellite Centre (represented by: A. Guillerme, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking the suspension of the operation of the decision of the Director of SatCen of 3 July 2019 to reopen an administrative investigation against KF.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed;

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
##### 



(i)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the Fund, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known
to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which the
Report is being prepared;(ii)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the Funds disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in the Report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by the Report based on
such evaluation; and(iii)
    
    disclosed in the Report any change in the Funds internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the Funds most recent fiscal quarter that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Funds internal control over
financial reporting; and
  (i)
    
    all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls over
financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Funds ability
to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the Funds
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and(ii)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the Funds internal control over financial reporting.
 By:
    
    /s/ Roman GregorigRoman GregorigVice President, Audit Committee Financial Expert,
Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting OfficerSeptember 13, 2006
# C_2020137EN.01005101.xml

| 27.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 137/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137/51

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 5 March 2020 — HB v Commission

(Case T-796/19 R)

(Application for interim measures - Public service contracts - Irregularities in the contract award procedure - Recovery of sums already paid - Debit note - Application for suspension of operation - No urgency)

(2020/C 137/80)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: HB (represented by: M. Vandenbussche and L. Levi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz, J. Estrada de Solà and A. Katsimerou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking suspension of the operation of Commission Decision C(2019) 7318 final of 15 October 2019 to reduce the amounts due under contract TACIS/2006/101-510 and to recover the amounts unduly paid.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
Exhibit 99.2








Certification





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, the undersigned officer of AHL Services, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2002 (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Date: November 14, 2002





Name:

/s/    HEINZ STUBBLEFIELDTitle:

Chief Financial Officer
# C_2019213EN.01001401.xml

| 24.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Trnave (Slovakia) lodged on 9 April 2019 — RN v Home Credit Slovakia a.s.

(Case C-290/19)

(2019/C 213/13)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Krajský súd v Trnave

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RN

Defendant: Home Credit Slovakia a.s.

Question referred

Is Article 10[(2)](g) of Directive 2008/48/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that a consumer credit agreement satisfies the requirement laid down in that provision if the annual percentage rate of charge is indicated in the agreement, not as a specific percentage, but as a range between two figures (from — to)?

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66.

---
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 138 (Thursday, July 22, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 38735]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15632]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4586-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]


Texas; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Texas (FEMA-4586-DR), dated February 19, 2021, and 
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued June 24, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Texas is hereby amended to include the following areas 
among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the 
event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of 
February 19, 2021.

    Kerr, Lamar, and Shackelford Counties for Individual Assistance 
(already designated for emergency protective measures [Category B], 
including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance 
program).

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-15632 Filed 7-21-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramon DURAN-ESPINOZA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-40046

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 19, 2011.

Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

. Jose Luis Castillo, Esq., Hernandez & Castillo, P.C., Laredo, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Ramon Duran-Espinoza has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Duran-Espinoza has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Duran-Espinoza’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2. Duran-E spinoza’s motion for the appointment of new counsel is DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
No. 75-1746.

#### Alsbury *v.*United States Postal Service et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.